Comparative Sacramental Theology (Reformed ; Lutheran; Anglican Theology)

I. Comparative Sacramental Theology

1. Reformed (Westminster): Spiritual Presence, Covenant Signs

The theology of the sacraments articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith is often described as highly sacramental without being sacerdotal.

Key features:

• Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace

• A real spiritual relation exists between sign and thing signified

• Efficacy depends on Christ’s institution and the Spirit’s work, not the moment of administration

• Christ is really present in the Supper, but spiritually, not bodily

• Faith is the instrument of reception

This framework preserves objectivity (God truly gives) without collapsing into automatism or metaphysical speculation.

2. Lutheran Theology: Sacramental Union and Bodily Presence

Classical Lutheran theology, as articulated in the Augsburg Confession, affirms a more robust account of Christ’s bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper.

Key distinctions:

• Christ’s body and blood are truly present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine (often called sacramental union)

• The Supper conveys grace objectively, even to the unworthy (though not savingly)

• The presence is bodily, not merely spiritual, yet without transubstantiation

• Greater emphasis on Christ’s words of institution (“This is my body”)

Lutherans worry that the Reformed view risks thinning the Supper into subjectivity, the Reformed worry that the Lutheran view risks binding Christ’s glorified body too closely to earthly elements.

Despite this difference, both reject transubstantiation and affirm that the Supper is far more than remembrance.

3. Anglican Theology: Deliberate Theological Latitude

Anglican sacramental theology occupies a broad middle space, formally defined by the Thirty-Nine Articles and liturgically shaped by the Book of Common Prayer.

Key characteristics:

• Only two sacraments of the Gospel (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper)

• Rejection of transubstantiation as “repugnant to Scripture”

• Affirmation of real participation in Christ, without dogmatic precision on how

• Strong emphasis on reverent reception, repentance, and faith

Historically, Anglicanism has housed:

• Reformed-leaning interpretations (especially among Puritans and evangelicals)

• High Church or Anglo-Catholic views, approaching Roman Catholic realism

In this sense, Anglican theology is intentionally less confessional and more liturgical, allowing sacramental unity amid theological diversity.

II. How Chapters 27–29 Shaped Reformed Worship and Pastoral Practice

1. Word-Centered Worship

Westminster’s sacramental theology ensured that preaching remained central. The sacraments were never sidelined, but they were always:

• Interpreted by the Word

• Guarded from ritualism

• Integrated into covenantal proclamation

This produced a worship pattern in which:

• The sermon explains the gospel

• The sacraments visibly confirm the same gospel

• Christ speaks first; the church responds

2. Pastoral Oversight and “Fencing the Table”

One of the most distinctive historical consequences was the practice of fencing the Lord’s Table.

Rooted in Chapter 29, this involved:

• Catechetical preparation for communicants

• Self-examination encouraged from the pulpit

• Church discipline exercised pastorally, not punitively

The goal was not exclusion, but protection of souls and reverence for Christ’s ordinance. This practice profoundly shaped Reformed pastoral identity: ministers were not ritual technicians, but watchmen of the covenant.

3. Catechesis and Covenant Formation

Because baptism was understood as covenantal rather than magical, Reformed churches invested heavily in:

• Catechisms (Shorter and Larger)

• Household instruction

• Public profession of faith

Baptism marked the beginning of a long pastoral journey, not the end of one. This produced generations of Christians formed by teaching, discipline, and communal responsibility.

4. Frequency and Reverence of Communion

Historically, many Reformed churches practiced less frequent communion (monthly or quarterly), not from indifference, but from fear of trivialization.

While this has been debated and often revised in modern practice, the original impulse was pastoral:

• The Supper should never be routine

• Preparation mattered

• Reverence guarded joy

Even where frequency increased, the Westminster framework ensured that depth was never sacrificed for immediacy.

---

III. A Final Integrative Observation

What distinguishes the Westminster vision is not austerity, but theological restraint in service of pastoral care.

• Against Rome: it denies a sacrificing priesthood

• Against Zwinglianism: it denies mere symbolism

• Against Lutheranism: it denies bodily localization

• Against enthusiasm: it denies private administration

Yet it affirms—quietly but firmly—that Christ truly gives Himself to His people through outward means He Himself appointed.

In that sense, Chapters 27–29 are not merely doctrinal guardrails; they are a pastoral theology of assurance, teaching believers to trust not their experience, but God’s promise—spoken, seen, and sealed.

Chapter 29 — Of the Lord’s Supper

 

Chapter 29 — Of the Lord’s Supper

1. Purpose of the Supper

The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ to be observed frequently until His return. Its purposes include:

• Remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice

• Spiritual nourishment and growth

• Strengthening of faith

• Renewed covenant commitment

• Communion with Christ and His people

The Supper does not repeat Christ’s sacrifice. It proclaims it. The table is not an altar; Christ is not re-offered. His atonement is once-for-all and fully sufficient.

---

2. Presence Without Transformation

The Confession rejects transubstantiation and any notion that the bread and wine are changed in substance. The elements remain bread and wine.

Yet the Supper is far more than mental recollection.

Christ is really, spiritually present—not corporally or locally, but by the Holy Spirit. Believers truly feed upon Christ by faith, receiving all the benefits of His death and resurrection.

Again, the distinction is crucial:

• Bread and wine are the signs

• Christ and His benefits are the things signified

• Faith is the instrument of reception

• The Spirit is the agent of efficacy

Unbelievers may receive the elements, but they do not receive Christ. Indeed, they eat and drink judgment—not because the sacrament is magical, but because covenant signs must be approached with discernment.

---

3. Fencing the Table

The Supper is for those who:

• Profess faith in Christ

• Examine themselves

• Discern the Lord’s body

This necessitates pastoral oversight. The table belongs to Christ, not to the individual, and the church has a responsibility to guard it lovingly but faithfully.

Hence the strong insistence that the Supper be administered by ordained ministers, who preach the Word, explain the sacrament, and oversee its faithful use.

---

4. Unity of Word and Sacrament

In both Baptism and the Supper, Chapters 28 and 29 demonstrate the Confession’s central conviction:

The sacraments never stand alone.
They are the visible Word, confirming what the preached Word declares.

Detached from preaching, sacraments become either ritualism or sentimentality. Joined to the Word and received by faith, they become powerful means by which Christ assures, nourishes, and strengthens His people.

---

A Closing Pastoral Word

Taken together, these chapters present a deeply reverent, Christ-centered sacramental theology—one that avoids both bare symbolism and sacramental magic. Baptism marks our entry into the covenant community; the Supper sustains us along the pilgrim road.

Both proclaim the same gospel:

Christ given for sinners—received by faith alone yet graciously confirmed through visible signs ordained by God.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28 — Of Baptism

 

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 28 — Of Baptism

1. The Meaning of Baptism: Sign and Reality

Baptism is described as a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Christ, with a rich cluster of meanings. It signifies and seals:

• Ingrafting into Christ

• Remission of sins

• Regeneration by the Spirit

• Adoption and covenant inclusion

• Obligation to walk in newness of life

Here the Confession is careful and precise:
Baptism does not regenerate automatically, nor is grace inseparably tied to the moment of administration. Yet neither is baptism an empty symbol. It is a true means of grace, because God has freely attached His promises to it.

The water is the sign; union with Christ and cleansing from sin are the things signified. The efficacy of baptism depends not on the water, nor on the minister, but on God’s appointment and the Spirit’s work, received by faith.

2. Who May Be Baptized

Baptism is to be administered:

• Once only, as the sign of covenant entrance

• To those who profess faith in Christ

• And to the infants of one or both believing parents

Infant baptism rests on covenant theology rather than presumed regeneration. The child receives the sign of the promise, not a guarantee of salvation. Baptism places the child within the visible church and under its nurture, discipline, and prayers—anticipating faith rather than replacing it.

Thus, baptism looks forward as well as backward: it binds God’s promise to the individual and binds the individual (or the child’s household) to a life of faith and repentance.

3. Mode and Minister

The Confession affirms that baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling with water, emphasizing meaning over method. Immersion is not denied, but it is not required.

Consistent with Chapter 27, baptism is to be administered only by a lawfully ordained minister of the Word, because it is a public covenant act of Christ toward His church—not a private devotional rite.

Westminster Confession of Faith — Chapter 27: Of the Sacraments

 1. Sacraments as Signs and Seals

Chapter 27 teaches that sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, instituted directly by God. Their purpose is fourfold:

• To represent Christ and His benefits

• To confirm believers in Him

• To distinguish the visible church from the world

• To solemnly engage believers in obedience

The Confession is careful to distinguish between the sign (the outward element) and the thing signified (the spiritual reality). Water, bread, and wine do not become grace; rather, they point to grace already promised in Christ.

Yet the connection between sign and reality is not merely symbolic or subjective. By divine appointment, there is a real spiritual relation between them. Thus, Scripture can speak of the sign using the name of the thing signified (e.g., baptism called “washing,” the Supper called “communion in the body and blood of Christ”)—without implying any physical transformation.

Grace is not conferred automatically (ex opere operato), but is effectually applied by the Holy Spirit to those who receive the sacrament by faith, according to God’s sovereign will.

2. Two Sacraments, Not Seven

The Confession recognizes only two sacraments as instituted by Christ for the New Covenant:

1. Baptism

2. The Lord’s Supper

These alone meet the biblical criteria for a sacrament:

• Instituted by Christ

• Commanded for the whole church

• Using a visible sign that signifies gospel grace

In contrast, Roman Catholicism recognizes seven sacraments:

• Baptism

• Confirmation

• Eucharist

• Penance

• Extreme Unction

• Holy Orders

• Matrimony

From a Protestant perspective, five of these lack either clear dominical institution or the character of a gospel sign and seal. They may be pastoral rites or ecclesial practices, but they are not sacraments in the strict biblical sense.

3. Why Only Lawfully Ordained Ministers May Administer the Sacraments

Chapter 27 insists that the sacraments are to be dispensed only by ministers of the Word lawfully ordained. This is not because ministers possess a higher personal holiness or ontological power, but because:

• Sacraments are acts of Christ toward His church, not private religious expressions.

• They belong to public worship, which Christ has entrusted to duly called shepherds.

• The same authority that preaches the Word authoritatively also administers its visible confirmation.

Word and sacrament are inseparable. To detach the sacraments from ordained ministry risks severing them from their ecclesial and doctrinal guardrails, turning them into either magical rites or subjective symbols.

This is a matter of order, fidelity, and accountability, not clerical privilege.

4. Priesthood of All Believers vs. Ministerial Priesthood

Protestant theology wholeheartedly affirms the priesthood of all believers: every Christian has direct access to God through Christ, offers spiritual sacrifices, and shares in Christ’s anointing as Prophet, Priest, and King.

However, this does not eliminate the need for ordained ministry. Rather, it clarifies its nature.

• In Protestantism, ministers are not mediating priests who re-present Christ’s sacrifice.

• They are servants of the Word, stewards of the mysteries, and shepherds of Christ’s flock.

• Their authority is ministerial and declarative, not sacrificial or ontological.

By contrast, Roman Catholic theology understands the priesthood as a distinct sacramental order, imparting an indelible character and enabling the priest to act in persona Christi, especially in the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The Reformed tradition rejects this, insisting that Christ’s priesthood is once-for-all, unrepeatable, and fully sufficient. No human priest stands between the believer and God—yet Christ still appoints under-shepherds to preach, teach, and administer His ordinances faithfully.

5. A Gracious Balance

Chapter 27 thus holds together two essential truths:

• The sacraments are profoundly meaningful, truly communicating Christ and His benefits to believers by faith.

• They are never autonomous, never magical, and never detached from the Word, the Spirit, and the church Christ has ordered.

In this way, the Confession safeguards both the objectivity of God’s promises and the necessity of faith, preserving the sacraments as gifts of grace rather than human achievements.

Matthew 22:30 - No Marriage in Heaven

 Let us approach Matthew 22:30 with both careful exegesis and pastoral sensitivity.

“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”
— Gospel of Matthew 22:30

---

1. Immediate Context and Meaning

Jesus is responding to the Sadducees, who deny the resurrection and attempt to reduce it to absurdity by projecting earthly social structures—especially marriage—into the age to come. His answer corrects a category error: the resurrection life is not merely a continuation of present life, but a transformation of it.

Marriage, as instituted in creation, serves several purposes:

• Covenant companionship in a fallen world

• Ordering of sexuality

• Procreation and the continuation of humanity

• A sacramental sign pointing beyond itself (cf. Eph. 5)

In the resurrection, these purposes are fulfilled and transcended. Humanity has reached its telos; death is no more; procreation is no longer necessary; and the sign has given way to the reality.

---

2. “Like the Angels”: Not Less Human, but Fully Human

Jesus does not say we become angels, but that we are like them in this respect—specifically, non-marital and immortal (Luke 20:36 clarifies this).

This is crucial:

• The resurrection does not diminish relational capacity

• It expands it beyond present constraints

Angels are fully oriented toward God and, therefore, fully available in love and communion. That is the analogy Jesus invokes.

---

3. Marriage as an Exclusive Love—and Its Necessary Limits

The deepest earthly marriages are marked by:

• Exclusivity

• Particularity

• A kind of holy partiality

This exclusivity is not a flaw; it is essential to marriage. Yet it also means that even the most loving spouses must withhold certain dimensions of affection, availability, and intimacy from others.

In heaven, however:

• There is no need for protective exclusivity

• No fear of loss or rivalry

• No divided loyalties

What marriage guarded in a broken world becomes universalized in a redeemed one.

---

4. Greater Love, Not Less Love

A common pastoral fear is that the absence of marriage implies the loss of its love. Jesus suggests the opposite.

In the resurrection:

• Love is no longer filtered through insecurity, sin, fatigue, or finitude

• The heart is fully healed and enlarged

• Each person loves with a Christlike, undiminished charity

Thus, the redeemed will love every redeemed person more deeply, more purely, and more joyfully than even the best earthly spouses can love one another now.

This does not erase personal history. Recognition remains. Memory remains. But love is no longer competitive or possessive—it is perfectly generous.

---

5. Christ as the Fulfillment of Spousal Love

Marriage, Scripture teaches, is ultimately eschatological signpost, pointing to the union between Christ and His people. When the Bridegroom is fully present, the sign is no longer needed.

In heaven:

• No one is “less loved” because all are fully loved

• No one is “lonely” because communion is complete

• No one is “second” because all are equally secure in divine love

What spouses taste now in fleeting moments—complete knowing without fear, intimacy without shame, love without loss—becomes the shared atmosphere of the redeemed community.

---

6. A Pastoral Summary

Jesus is not telling us that heaven is relationally impoverished. He is telling us it is relationally consummated.

Earthly marriage is a narrow channel carrying a vast river of love. In the resurrection, the river overflows its banks and floods the entire landscape of redeemed humanity.

What is relinquished is not love—but limitation.

The Church According to Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith

 

1. What Do We Mean When We Say “the Church”?

The Confession reminds us that the Church is more than a building or a denomination. At its deepest level, it is the whole people of God, united to Jesus Christ, whom Scripture calls our Head, Bridegroom, and Savior.
Discussion: How does this broader understanding shape the way we think about our local congregation?

---

2. The Invisible Church: God’s Perspective

The invisible Church includes all the elect—believers from every age whom God knows perfectly. This gives us comfort: God’s work in salvation is secure, even when the visible Church appears weak or divided.
Discussion: Why is it reassuring that God sees His Church more clearly than we do?

---

3. The Visible Church: Our Lived Experience

The visible Church includes all who publicly profess the Christian faith and their children. It is where faith is taught, worship is offered, and discipleship takes place in real time.
Discussion: What responsibilities come with belonging to the visible Church?

---

4. One Church, Not Two Competing Churches

The Confession does not describe two separate churches, but two ways of speaking about the same Church—one as God sees it, and one as it appears in the world.
Discussion: How can confusing these two perspectives lead either to discouragement or pride?

---

5. The Church as God’s Ordinary Means of Grace

God ordinarily uses the Church—through preaching, sacraments, and fellowship—to bring people to faith and nurture them in Christ. This underscores the importance of regular worship and participation.
Discussion: Why do you think God chose to work through the Church rather than independent spirituality?

---

6. Christ’s Faithful Provision

Christ has not left His Church unequipped. He provides ministers, Scripture, and ordinances, and He works through them by the Holy Spirit to grow His people.
Discussion: Where have you seen Christ faithfully sustaining His Church, even in difficult seasons?

---

7. The Church’s Visibility Changes Over Time

At different points in history, the Church has been more or less visible, influential, or faithful. God’s purposes, however, have never failed.
Discussion: How does church history help us remain patient and hopeful today?

---

8. No Perfect Churches—Including Ours

Every church, even the best, is marked by sin and error. This calls us to humility, discernment, and ongoing reform rather than cynicism or withdrawal.
Discussion: How can we pursue faithfulness without expecting perfection?

---

9. A Serious Warning About Departure from the Gospel

The Confession soberly acknowledges that some churches may drift so far from Christ’s truth that they can no longer rightly be called His. This urges vigilance and love for the truth.
Discussion: What safeguards help a church remain faithful to the gospel?

---

10. Christ Alone Is the Head of the Church

Finally, the Confession insists that Christ alone governs His Church. No human leader or institution can take His place. This preserves both the Church’s unity and Christ’s glory.
Discussion: How does Christ’s headship shape our view of authority, leadership, and obedience in the Church?

Why Did God Say “I Hate Divorce”? (Patrick Madrid)

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE is a widespread problem these days. Many Christians know the pain of divorce, and some have remarried. Not surprisingly, many of them wonder about the spiritual ramifications of their situation.

This topic comes up frequently from callers to my daily radio show. In this article, I share the specific details from the Bible and Catholic teaching that I raise when the issue comes up on the show.

Divorced Christians who’ve never attempted remarriage, or who have received from the Church what is known as an “annulment,” are not the focus here. Rather, it’s Christians who divorce and remarry without going through the annulment process who should heed the danger of their spiritual situation.

The Catholic Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage is anchored squarely on Christ’s teaching:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Greek: μοιχεία, moicheia), and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31–32).

The Catechism says,

“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384).

“Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society” (CCC 2385).

“It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage” (CCC 2386).

This is why God said, “I hate divorce . . . so take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless” (Malachi 2:16).

Note that God does not hate people who get divorced, nor does He hate them for getting divorced. He hates divorce itself because of its destructive effects: breaking the marriage contract, separation, pain, chaos, alienation, and the incalculable damage it causes to the husband and wife, their children, extended family, friends, and even to society itself.

When the Rich Young Man asked Christ what he must do to go to heaven, He responded, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Among those he listed was “You shall not commit adultery” (Matthew 19:16–19).

In Matthew 19:3–10:

“Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’”

Some argue that the phrase “except on the ground of unchastity” constitutes an “exception clause” that allows for divorce and remarriage in cases where one or both spouses commits adultery. But this is a misreading of the text.

The Greek word here for unchastity, porneia (πορνεία),1 refers to sexual unlawfulness precisely because the two “spouses” are not validly married (cf. John 4:17–18), even though they live as if they were. In such cases, to separate and then marry someone else would not constitute adultery, since the two parties were not validly married to begin with.

The Lord was not giving an “exception” for adultery (moicheia), as porneia is sometimes misleadingly rendered into English versions of the Bible. He speaks of the sexual unlawfulness of the union between the man and the woman itself because the arrangement itself is porneia.

King Herod Antipas and his “wife” Herodias make a prime example of this biblical warning against sexual unlawfulness (Matthew 19:9). Even though they “married,” they were not validly married in the eyes of God, which is why St. John the Baptist denounced this sham marriage, declaring, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). She was the wife of Herod’s brother Philip.

For his part, St. Paul condemns another sordid situation in which an unnamed Christian man was living as if married with his own father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-5). Similarly, Jesus confronts a “married” woman who was living with a man as if married:

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”

The woman answered him, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.” (John 4:16–18)

A valid marriage, however, cannot be dissolved. As the Lord said:

“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’”
(Matthew 19:3–6)

St. Paul adds:

“[A] married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:2–3).

Anyone who imagines that divorce and remarriage is not serious in God’s eyes should ponder this warning:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

That passage might trouble someone who is divorced and remarried but who never went through the annulment process and received from the Church a declaration of nullity (i.e., “an annulment”). If so, he or she should feel troubled. His conscience is warning that something is spiritually very wrong.

If you are in this situation, contact a Catholic priest for sacramental confession and to get advice on how to correct things.

Commentary on what “Convalidation” Is and Isn’t from Canon Lawyer Fr. Mark Clarke, C.M.F.

As a professor of canon law and experience of working in a Tribunal, there is confusion, even among clergy, regarding the proper application of convalidation. This is often rooted in the confusion between a defect of canonical form and a lack of canonical form.

Ordinary canonical form is described in Canon 1108 and stipulates that a valid marriage is contracted by a proper member of the clergy and before two witnesses (typically the best man and maid of honor). If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the bishop or his delegate has the right of dispensing the Catholic party from the form in individual cases, which we often see for mixed marriages (Can. 1127).

The Church allows a convalidation of a marriage in cases where there was a defect of canonical form. For example, one of the two witnesses lacked the use of reason because he was inebriated and incapable of comprehending the manifestation of consent, or a visiting priest was outside his territory without proper delegation to assist at the wedding. These defects are typically not the fault of the couple.

However, there is no convalidation for a LACK OF CANONICAL FORM.

If a baptized Catholic gets civilly married (a complete lack of canonical form), THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE – that Catholic party is in a CIVIL UNION.

If later, that Catholic party wants to have the marriage “blessed,” they can’t, because there’s NOTHING TO BLESS because there was no marriage. The Church does not bless civil unions!

They will need to have a valid Catholic wedding where they exchange consent following canonical form. This is why we should avoid language that suggests a couple in an invalid marriage because of lack of form can “have their marriage blessed” or convalidated.

We see this commonly in cultures such as Mexico where couples have to have a separate civil marriage ceremony and a “Church” sacramental marriage ceremony, but the “Church” wedding is often delayed until later. Even though they are legally “civilly” married, in the eyes of the Church, this couple is in an invalid civil union that cannot later be convalidated.

If a baptized Catholic gets married by a Justice of the Peace or by a non-Catholic minister without a dispensation, they are not married! They’re in a civil union that’s legally recognized by the state, but not in a marriage recognized by God and the Church.

For baptized Catholics, there is only sacramental marriage.